Meyerson: GOP will pay a price for causing havoc

For the third time in less than 20 years, congressional Republicans are bringing the nation’s government to a halt in an attempt to reverse the outcome of national elections.

The first instance was Republicans’ shutdown of the government in 1995-96 (which, actually, was two shutdowns in rapid succession). The second was their impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998. Today, we’re slogging through the third — yet another shutdown.

Each instance had its proximate causes. In 1995, the GOP-controlled Congress, led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich, refused to fund the government after Clinton rejected its spending cuts to Medicare benefits and Republicans failed to muster the votes to override his vetoes. In 1998, the House, led by then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay, impeached Clinton for having sex with an intern but denying it to a special prosecutor (whose charge, uncovering Clinton’s alleged business scandals, had turned up nothing).

Republicans have now shuttered the government to pressure President Barack Obama to stop implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Repealing the health-care law would require either a Republican president or veto-proof majorities in both the House and Senate, but Republicans failed to elect either in 2012.

The punishment the GOP metes out never really fits the “crime” Republicans insist has compelled them to act. In rejecting the Republicans’ proposed Medicare cuts in 1995-96, Clinton was simply reasserting what had been national policy for 30 years. Republicans never convinced most ordinary Americans, much less constitutional scholars, that Clinton’s sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, and his denial of same, amounted to the high crimes and misdemeanors that the Founders said were grounds for impeachment. And it’s absurd to argue that Obamacare — modeled after a right-wing think tank’s proposal for a health-insurance program that left the private health-insurance industry intact — is a socialist threat to the American way of life. If Republicans truly believe that Obama must be forced to undo the socialization of medical insurance, they would demand the repeal of Medicare, not Obamacare.

So, what’s really going on? What’s behind this two-decade drive to employ the obstructive power of a governmental minority to undo the policies that a majority enacted or to unseat an elected president? Plainly, the gap between the Republican Party and the rest of the nation has widened. And as that gap has grown, Republicans have become more insular and more desperate — a toxic combination for a functioning democracy.

The Republicans who swept to power in 1994 were the first House and Senate delegations that reflected the party’s new center of power in the white South. For the first time in Republican history, most of the party’s top legislative leaders came from former Confederate states, where resistance to minority and worker rights was an established tradition. Even today, this resistance remains key to the GOP’s hold on power; the voter-suppression efforts in Republican-controlled Southern states make this clear.

Since 1995, the demographic and cultural changes transforming this nation have deepened the Republicans’ marginality. The growth of Latino and Asian populations — both groups increasingly trend Democratic — has relentlessly reduced the white share of the electorate, on which Republicans have come to rely almost exclusively. The only presidential election in which the GOP nominee has won a plurality of the popular vote since then was George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004. The current Republican hold on the House is the product of the lily-white, gerrymandered districts that GOP legislators crafted after the 2010 Census; in 2012, House Democrats won nearly 1.4 million more popular votes than House Republicans.

All this leaves only two ways that Republicans can affect public policy at the national level: They can embrace minority rights (through, say, immigration reform) and accept a legitimate role for government in the nation’s economic affairs (which, polls show, millennials strongly support) — that is, they can move to the center. Or they can try to maximize the power of their minority status by trying to disrupt the nation to the point that the majority will be compelled to support Republican positions.

Rationality dictates the first choice, but rationality doesn’t hold much sway in today’s GOP. Insularity is largely to blame. Right-wing media fuel support for Republican lawmakers’ most obstructionist tendencies. And Republicans in safely GOP districts don’t have to concern themselves with voters who may blanch at their radicalism.

Is this course sustainable? Ultimately, no. Eventually, the number of millennials, voters of color and fed-up moderates will rise to the point that 218 sufficiently white and conservative House districts can no longer be crafted. How much havoc Republicans can wreak until then, however, is anybody’s guess.

Harold Meyerson is editor-at-large of The American Prospect. This column was distributed by the Washington Post News Service with Bloomberg News.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Comment viewing options

Sort Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

"Abroad, the world is caught between laughter and confusion as a superpower is paralyzed by its inability to overcome a relentless minority of lawmakers who have put the the entire government on the line to defund a health care law passed by Congress, signed by the president and upheld by the Supreme Court. America's political meltdown, an international embarrassment, has compromised the country's global image and credibility:

United Kingdom
“It is a risk to the world economy if the U.S. can’t properly sort out its spending plans.” -- Prime Minister David Cameron to BBC Radio 4’s Today

“For most of the world, a government shutdown is very bad news –- the result of revolution, invasion or disaster. Even in the middle of its ongoing civil war, the Syrian government has continued to pay its bills and workers’ wages. That leaders of one of the most powerful nations on earth willingly provoked a crisis that suspends public services and decreases economic growth is astonishing to many. … Now, as the latest shutdown crisis plays out, policymakers in other nations are left to ponder the worldwide impact of the impasse.” -- Anthony Zurcher, BBC

“The last few weeks of paralysis on Capitol Hill have demonstrated a system apparently quite incapable of rational action and thought. It’s not the economy that’s the problem, but the government.” -- The Telegraph

So, we have a REPRESENTATIVE government, where those people elected by a MAJORITY of the citizens in their district, and are sent to congress to represent THEIR will.

According to the polls, the majority of citizens are opposed to the “Affordable Care Act” which means it should be expected that the majority our representatives are also expected to oppose the “Affordable Care Act” and should do what they can to oppose the “Affordable Care Act.”

So if Senator Harry (it’s my way or the highway) Reid does not like the fact that the majority of the House of Representatives are actually representing the will of the majority of the citizens, he will use his power of “President pro Tempore” to not allow the Senate to even consider legislation offered by the House of Representatives and shut down the federal government until he gets what “he” decides the majority of over 316 million citizens want.

And, of course, President Barack Obama has stated that if there is any attempt to defund, delay, or modify the only serious legislation he was able to get through a democratically controlled congress; legislation that would have to be made law before we could know what is in it and now that people are finding out everything the law is going to require, the majority are against it; that he will veto it.

It was built into the Constitution to prevent one part of the government from acquiring more power than the Constitution allows. A principle that has not worked as well as the Founding Fathers hoped it would but was intended to protect the liberties and rights of "we the people."

That is why they wrote the Constitution so the federal government had limited and defined powers that were suppose to make the federal government a servant of the people and the states, not their master. A Constitution that made the liberties and rights of the citizens a matter constitutional law, not statutory law. But, with liberals, it all depends on what the meaning they apply to words is at the moment.

President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.”

Unofficial definition of diplomacy: The art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they actually look forward to the trip.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

@ bfielder, this world opinion, is another reason why we will wake up some morning with red,or yellow money. How much do you think it will exchange for 3-1 or 4-1. I say 4-1, some people much smarter than me, think 2-1, but I think the cut will be much deeper. What do you think?

Great, now the author s trying to indicate that the shutdown is racist also. Racism is the inability to get past are ones race. Seems this guy fits the definition quite well.

For all of you gritching about the Republicans and their tactics, you do realize that in a majority of the shutdowns in our nations history the Dimocrats had control of the house. The reason you don't remember those is because they were quickly solved through compromise. Noun: an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by EACH SIDE making concessions (Emphasis added). Solutions through compromise cannot be be reached when the leaders of one side openly admits they will not budge.

First request by they Republicans, get rid of ACA-Denied! Second request by Republicans, delay the ACA for one year- Denied! Third compromise, delay the individual mandate, just as Obama unilaterally delayed the business mandate, for one year-denied! Fourth compromise, appoint a joint conference committee made up from members of both parties to work out a compromise-denied! Fifth compromise, a series of funding bills to to reverse the most heinous results of the shutdown-denied!

The author claims that Republicans are trying to "reverse the outcome of national elections". National elections put the Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives after the Dimocrats rammed and bribed the ACA down Americans throat. The actions of the house Republicans is the result of the LATEST national elections.

It actually seems like President Obama is taking the biggest hit with his polling numbers falling to all- time lows. We have a President who has proven over and over that he is a bully ( IRS scandal latest is an audit on Dr. Ben Carson) stifles freedom of the press and free speech; religous tolerance and freedom ( HHS mandate with no concience exemption as promised) where do I stop this list? You get the picture; the guy can't rise above the petty politics he supposedly hated and lead.

Victor not sure I am right about who you are.
If I am would like to buy a keg at your place, invite the one's who post here on a regular basis in for a beer. No one would have to use there real name, hell they could even wear a mask. I think it would
be a fun thing if not interesting.

has not stopped collecting revenue. The federal government still has money to spend on the essentials. The president can still spend that money on what he thinks is important. Did the president not say that if gun control would save the life of even one child that they had to do something, I guess medical care for children is different for some reason.

Then the democratic controlled Senate was given the chance to bypass the shut down and continue funding the medical needs of children but refused to do so.

The U.S. Senate's leading Democrat found himself in embarrassingly hot water Wednesday, after dismissing the idea of funding children's cancer research through the government shutdown.

'If you can help one child, why won't you do it?' asked CNN reporter Dana Bash.

'Why, why, why would we want to do that?' countered Reid.

'I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force Base that are sitting home' because of government employee furloughs, he told Bash and a roomful of other journalists. 'They have – they have a few problems of their own.'

'This is – to have someone of your intelligence suggest such a thing maybe means you're as irresponsible and reckless.'

Bash: You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical trials. The House is presumably going to pass a bill that funds the NIH. Will you, at least, pass that? And if not, aren't you playing the same political games that republicans are?

REID: Listen, Senator Durbin explained that very well. And he's, did it here, did it on the floor earlier, as did Senator Schumer, and it's this: What right do they have to pick and choose what part of government's going to be funded? It's obvious what's going home here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible. Wow. What this is all about is Obamacare. They are obsessed. I don't know what other word I can use. I don't what other word I can use. They are obsessed with this Obamacare thing.

As has been pointed out on the floor in the past few days, they did the same thing on Social Security, they did the same thing on Medicare, now they're doing it on this. It's working now and it'll continue to work and people will love it even more than they do now by far. So they have no right to pick and choose.

DANA: But if you can help one child, why won't you do it?

REID: I, listen...

SCHUMER: Why pit one against the other?

REID: Why, why, why would we want to do that? I have, I have 1100 people at Nellis Air Force Base that are sitting home. They have, they have a few problems of their own. This is, to have someone of your intelligence suggest such a thing maybe means you're as irresponsible and reckless.

Open quote.
The Kentucky Obamacare marketplace has no “expectation of privacy,” warning its prospective customers that their information can be monitored and shared with government bureaucrats.

When clicking “let’s get started” on the state-run health insurance marketplace “kynect,” the user is quickly prompted to a “WARNING NOTICE.”

“This is a government computer system and is the property of the Commonwealth of Kentucky,” it states. “It is for authorized use only regardless of time of day, location or method of access. “

“Users (authorized or unauthorized) have no explicit or implicit expectation of privacy,” the disclaimer reads. “Any or all uses of this system and all files on the system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized state government and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign.”

Such information includes Social Security numbers. When calling kynect to enroll in the marketplace a person is told to have their Social Security card, immigration status, pay stubs, alimony payments, student loan information, and current health insurance information at the ready.

The kynect disclaimer says users information can be shared at the will of state government agencies.

“By using this system,” the warning states, “the user consents to such at the discretion of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.”

“Unauthorized or improper use of this system may result in administrative disciplinary action and/or civil and criminal penalties,” it says. “The unauthorized disclosure of Data containing privacy or health data may result in criminal penalties under Federal authority.”

A spokesperson for kynect called the disclaimer “problematic,” and said it was a mistake.

“The disclaimer is a federal requirement intended to let all who come on the website know this is a governmental entity and sensitive information is contained within,” said Gwenda Bond, assistant communications director for the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services, told the Washington Free Beacon.

“While the language sounds severe, it actually is a warning to those who might try to inappropriately use the website or any personal information contained within,” she said. “We appreciate you bringing this to our attention, and we are working to modify the language so the message is more clear.”

Bond said kynect will update its website to read: “This website is the property of the Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange. This is to notify you that you are only authorized to use this site, or any information accessed through this site, for its intended purpose of assisting individuals, employers or employees in the selection or purchase of health plans or other benefits.”

“Unauthorized access or disclosure of personal and confidential information may be punishable by fines under state and federal law. Unauthorized access to this website or access in excess of your authorization may also be criminally punishable. The Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange follow applicable federal and state guidelines to protect information from misuse or unauthorized access.”

Problems with the health insurance exchanges since their launch on Tuesday have been widespread, with reports of long wait times, glitches, and security concerns, with the disclosure of over 2,000 Social Security numbers in Minnesota.
Close quote.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Buck, if Congress does default on covering our debt, the credit of the US government would be downgraded again thus increasing the interest rate we would have to guarantee on the Treasury bills and bonds we sell to finance our debt. Think of it as a credit card interest rate going from 18% to 21% per annum and you'll see what I mean. Constitutionally, only Congress can authorize the higher debt ceiling so there is no real reason for Obama to get involved except for the blackmail attempts the GOP is using. (Btw, we hold more US securities here in the US than are owned by all foreign countries combined. In other words, we buy more US issued securities here in our own country than we sell to other countries.)

DML: why should any compromise be needed regarding a constitutionally enacted and Supreme Court validated law? If the GOP wants to make changes to an established law, they need to work on persuading other members of the House and Senate, including Democrats, that their revision bills are passable. Of course, that takes hard work and real solid ideas. As it now stands, the GOP and their tea party brats know they cannot accomplish this following legal, constitutional means so they are trying bullying, bluffing, blackmail and extortion to force change.

Victor: have you checked the poll numbers on Congress' job performance vs Obama's? End of story.

the elected representatives of the people actually worry about what the majority wants? After all, they are too stupid to really know what is going on or what is best for them. Everybody knows that the collective knowledge and wisdom of over 300 million people is no match for the 535 members of Congress, the President, and nine Supreme Court justices.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

If the US had a parliamentary government, I guess there could be a no confidence vote and if Obama lost, new general elections could be held to avoid the US style government shutdowns. But, we all get to watch the latest game of political "chicken" now.

As you yourself have pointed out, our government is one of checks and balances. The current tea party brats of the GOP apparently don't like this and are trying to bully their objectives across instead of doing so legislatively.

I am sure that southern Democrats were just as angry when the Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws were passed. They did not have the votes to stop these bills and even Strom Thurmond's record setting filibuster couldn't stop the legislation. But the southern Dems did not try to obstruct the government from doing their required tasks and shut down the government come budget time.

This liberal hack author can't even get the Clinton impeachment correct. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about sex with an intern. His law license was suspended for five years by both Arkansas and the US Supreme Court. If the author is going to lie or is that ignorant, no point in reading the rest of his article.

reelected President Barack Obama and let the Senate keep its democrat majority and the House of Representatives keep its republican majority. Logical conclusion, they wanted a divided government to make it harder to push legislation through.

And as more and more was found out about the consequences of the "affordable Care Act" since the 2012 election, more and more citizens have decided they oppose it until a clear and unmistakable plurality if not an outright majority have decided they do not want it.

"Thirty-six percent (36%) of Likely U.S. Voters believe the government should require every American to buy or obtain health insurance, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifty percent (50%) disagree and oppose the so-called individual mandate. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided."

Since the Senate is now directly elected by the citizens and are suppose to represent the people's will, not the Democratic party's will, maybe Senator Harry Reid should allow legislation to be debated and voted on by the entire Senate instead of using his power as President pro tempore to stop most the bills coming from the House of Representatives from even being considered by the Senate much less being debated and voted on.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

the will of the majority of the citizens a game? I was under the impression that representing the will of the majority was the job of congress and the President. Is that not the whole principle of representative government?

The only people playing games are those who have the attitude that the average citizen is inferior to them, lacks the intelligence to properly run their own lives, and desperately need their superiors to control their lives so they do not mess everything up. Which is the same attitude that plantation owners used to justify the slavery of Africans.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Made it their goal to obstruct the ACA versus performing their budget duties. They have obviously lost that round so they are repeating their tactics that led to the sequestration being enacted.

Boehner is too scared he will lose the Speakership if he let a clean CR vote happen now. If it passed, there goes any leverage he and his bunglers might have in their legislatively weak position. It is not up to any President to rescue a stupid political opponent from their own stupid political moves. Particularly when they tried to negate a current law that was passed constitutionally and later validated by SCOTUS.

I would have thought that you would recognize this salient fact OTFB. The 2012 election settled the question re enacting the ACA. Boehner and his bunglers would have been much better off to stick to battling Obama using the budget and debt ceiling from the start. Instead they have wasted 2 weeks in trying to follow that obstructionist blueprint uncovered by the NY Times. They allowed Cruz to lead them down a road that was a legislative dead end.

are not Constitutional laws, no matter how "validated" they are. Statutory laws are always open to modification or repeal. That is how welfare went from a hand up to a hand out and which has trapped generations of people in the soft slavery of dependency. That is how affirmative action became affirmative quotas, which has put the accomplishments of minorities into question.

No statute law must be accepted by the people if they do not want it or change their minds at a later date. Just because all three branches of government decide a law is OK does not make it the holy will of godless and is now the immutable law of the land.

In a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; statutory laws exist or expire at the will of the majority of the people and it is the people's representative's sworn duty to "represent" the will of the majority.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Enough votes in both houses of Congress to pass the changes and to thwart a possible presidential veto. Gotta have those votes though . . . Trying to bully through the changes won't do it.

If the people don't like the way they are being represented, we the people can vote them out of office if we get [filtered word] off enough. I've been voting against Thornberry for years but not enough other people have joined me.